In re Laws, 31 Cal. 2d 846

THE COURT.

This case differs from the other racial restriction cases this day decided (Cumings v. Hokr, ‍​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‍ante, p. 844 [193 P.2d 742]; Cassell v. Hickerson, post, p. 869 [193 P.2d 743]; Davis v. Carter, post, p. 870 [193 P.2d 744]) in that here petitioners by final judgment were enjoined from ‍​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‍using or occupying their covenant restricted land, they refused to obey the order of the court, they were adjudged in contempt and committed for such disobedience ‍​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‍and now seek release on habeas corpus.

Since it is unquestionable that commitment for contempt for refusing to obey the order of the court to vacate ‍​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‍the restricted property amounts to “state action” to enforce the restrictions, within the purview of the decisions in Shelley v. Kraemer and McGhee v. Sipes (May 3, 1948, 334 U.S. 1 [68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed.-, ‍​​‌‌​​​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‍16 Law Week 4426]) the petitioners are entitled to their release.

Petitioners are discharged.

Case Details

Case Name: In re Laws

Court Name: California Supreme Court

Date Published: May 18, 1948

Citations: 31 Cal. 2d 846; 193 P.2d 744; 1948 Cal. LEXIS 368; Crim. No. 4698

Docket Number: Crim. No. 4698

Court Abbreviation: Cal.